Why does the President have armed guards?

[Avatar4321]

There's far more head hunters on the President's head, than any school childrens.'

Sometimes, perspective and relativity need to be brought up when wounds are fresh. You miss the point, completely.

Which, of course, is why he cited a bunch of people and organizations that aren't trying to take out the President.

^ obscure post makes no sense.

It does if you bother reading what I respond to before responding to me.

Are you honestly saying the President needs armed security to protect him from the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, or Fox news? Because that would be what Hazel was suggesting. That people and groups that have no desire for violence are a threat to the Presidents life.

Meanwhile, it's absolutely crazy to suggest we consider whether armed security may be useful to protect schools from random acts of mass murderers. No discussion on the merits. It's just insane.

It's obvious why we protect the President with armed security. It should be obvious why protecting school children the same way might also be wise if it's feesible.

The argument shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as something that is insane.

 

[Ravi]

So you're saying the President needs armed guards to defend himself from people and organizations who aren't going to hurt him physically, but our arming security guards in schools is just nuts despite the fact that there are people targetting them frequently.

The secret services has been protecting American presidents since the 19th century. This really isn't something the Obama adminstration came up with.

What's the matter, no one wants to play with your stupid strawman?

 

[eflatminor]

Better to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

But that would be logical.

Not if the reality of your efforts have no effect on criminals but in fact make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. That would not be logical.

 

[Avatar4321]

The secret services has been protecting American presidents since the 19th century. This really isn't something the Obama adminstration came up with.

You may as well get used to bashing your head if you are going to insist on these absurd comparisons. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

At what point does something get crazy? Far more children are murdered at home than at school, do we need to discuss putting an armed guard in every home with children? If not, don't you love the children?

Yeah. You're right. There is clearly no comparison to protecting one person and his family with armed security and protecting lots of people with armed security.

What on earth does it take to get people to think?

 

[Ravi]

Better to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

But that would be logical.

Not if the reality of your efforts have no effect on criminals but in fact make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. That would not be logical.

Where do criminals get guns?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I counter you leftist with a demand to legalize full auto! Second Amendment says SHALL NOT INFRINGE!!!!

 

[G.T.]

Which, of course, is why he cited a bunch of people and organizations that aren't trying to take out the President.

^ obscure post makes no sense.

It does if you bother reading what I respond to before responding to me.

Are you honestly saying the President needs armed security to protect him from the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, or Fox news? Because that would be what Hazel was suggesting. That people and groups that have no desire for violence are a threat to the Presidents life.

Meanwhile, it's absolutely crazy to suggest we consider whether armed security may be useful to protect schools from random acts of mass murderers. No discussion on the merits. It's just insane.

It's obvious why we protect the President with armed security. It should be obvious why protecting school children the same way might also be wise if it's feesible.

The argument shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as something that is insane.

It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.

People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.

You're missing "perspective."

We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.

 

[Avatar4321]

Two different things. No one is a position of power is likely to try to rape or abuse Obama. Giving guns to teachers, security guards, etc., is going to give some child abusers more power than they should have.

Better to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

But that would be logical.

So you think letting teachers or security at school be armed, would put students in a position to be raped and abused?

No. That's not freakin logical at all. There is nothing that even resembles logic in that.

 

[eflatminor]

Better to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

But that would be logical.

Not if the reality of your efforts have no effect on criminals but in fact make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. That would not be logical.

Where do criminals get guns?

Wherever they can, whenever they can. Your laws and regulations have no effect on a criminal's ability to use a firearm in the commission of their crimes, while simultaneously putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Go ahead, explain that logic.

 

[Avatar4321]

The secret services has been protecting American presidents since the 19th century. This really isn't something the Obama adminstration came up with.

What's the matter, no one wants to play with your stupid strawman?

Do you even know what a strawman is Ravi?

 

[AmyNation]

School children are more likely to die by being accidentally shot then they are in a school shooting spree.

They are also more likely to be sexually abused by an adult they know than they are to wounded in a shooting spree.

The same can not be said for the president.

 

[Avatar4321]

Better to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

But that would be logical.

Not if the reality of your efforts have no effect on criminals but in fact make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. That would not be logical.

Where do criminals get guns?

Wouldn't it be more logical to ban rape and abuse? But then if someone suggests that, it become apparant how illogical your argument is. So I guess we can't do that.

 

[Ravi]

Two different things. No one is a position of power is likely to try to rape or abuse Obama. Giving guns to teachers, security guards, etc., is going to give some child abusers more power than they should have.

Better to make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

But that would be logical.

So you think letting teachers or security at school be armed, would put students in a position to be raped and abused?

No. That's not freakin logical at all. There is nothing that even resembles logic in that.

It would probably put more students at risk. Nutters that prey on children take jobs that put them around children. I'm sure this isn't news to you as there are always stories in the news about abusive teachers, priests, etc.

 

[Ravi]

Not if the reality of your efforts have no effect on criminals but in fact make it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. That would not be logical.

Where do criminals get guns?

Wherever they can, whenever they can. Your laws and regulations have no effect on a criminal's ability to use a firearm in the commission of their crimes, while simultaneously putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Go ahead, explain that logic.

You can't admit that criminals get their guns from people that at one time purchased them legally, can you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm throwing down the axe for the right and demanding that FULL AUTO be legalized!

Come on Boener send that bill to the floor!

 

[Avatar4321]

It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.

People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.

You're missing "perspective."

We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.

It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.

Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.

 

[Koios]

Which, of course, is why he cited a bunch of people and organizations that aren't trying to take out the President.

^ obscure post makes no sense.

It does if you bother reading what I respond to before responding to me.

Are you honestly saying the President needs armed security to protect him from the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, or Fox news? Because that would be what Hazel was suggesting. That people and groups that have no desire for violence are a threat to the Presidents life.

Meanwhile, it's absolutely crazy to suggest we consider whether armed security may be useful to protect schools from random acts of mass murderers. No discussion on the merits. It's just insane.

It's obvious why we protect the President with armed security. It should be obvious why protecting school children the same way might also be wise if it's feesible.

The argument shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as something that is insane.

In re: bolded item: yes; what are you fucking nuts?

Put it into perspective: we've had 44 presidents. In my lifetime, Kennedy shot and killed; Reagan shot; Bush 41 plotted against by a foriegn leader.

Now in my state (WA), with no "columbine" events in my lifetime:

• Number of elementary and high school students: 989,252
• Number of elementary and high schools: 2,275
• Number of school districts: 295
• Number of school districts with fewer than 200 students each: 61
• Number of students in private education: 101,700

How many security firms, additional police, etc, are needed to do for students what we do for presidents? Something on the order of 5X our current military? And so the fucking gun makers can continue selling whatever the fuck they want, and the NRA can keep handing out hats to new members?

Grow a fucking braincell. Nah; scratch that. Two braincells, and then have them synapse with each other. You might like it. Amazing shit can happen when you think.

No shit.

 

[AmyNation]

Most illegal guns are purchased from licensed dealers, which means we need to do more to deal with dirty dealers, not law abiding Americans.

 

[Greenbeard]

Just wondering

Because he's a high-value/-probability target?

Just guessing

By Jove, I think you've got it!

 

[PratchettFan]

You may as well get used to bashing your head if you are going to insist on these absurd comparisons. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

At what point does something get crazy? Far more children are murdered at home than at school, do we need to discuss putting an armed guard in every home with children? If not, don't you love the children?

Yeah. You're right. There is clearly no comparison to protecting one person and his family with armed security and protecting lots of people with armed security.

What on earth does it take to get people to think?

Yes. There is no comparison and I am truly wondering what it takes to get people to think.

If you actually want an intelligent discussion on this, then start with an intelligent proposal. Don't make this ridiculous connection and expect to get a non-ridiculous response. Are you aware, for example, that this is an issue which can only be resolved at the state level? You do know the president can't put armed guards in schools, don't you? Not without nationalizing the National Guard. What exactly is it you are proposing and just how do you intend to pay for it?